Bill O’Reilly: Viagra for Health, Contraceptives for Promiscuity

Bill O’Reilly, on Friday night’s O’Reilly Factor, hosted Leslie Marshall and Janine Turner to discuss the media firestorm Rush Limbaugh has created with his incendiary comments toward Georgetown student Sandra Fluke (comments which included calling her a “sl*t” and a “prostitute”) for her Congressional testimony that universities should provide contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans – and for the larger issue of contraceptive coverage. Far from showing remorse for his tasteless, crass, misogynistic comments, Limbaugh has doubled, and tripled, down on his attacks.

To date, Limbaugh has seen some backlash in the form of seven lost advertisers (including Quicken Loans, Heart & Body Extract, Sleep Train, Sleep Number, Legal Zoom, Citrix and the Cleveland Cavaliers), with likely more to come – but far from giving Limbaugh a slap-down for his hostile and vicious attack on a young college student who is earnestly advocating for women everywhere, O’Reilly joined the fray in attacking Ms. Fluke, laying the groundwork in his Talking Points Memo:

“Do you want to pay for other peoples’ activities . . . This woman, Sandra Fluke, third year law student at Georgetown University, Catholic school, believes that all of us should pay for her sexual activities . . . so let me get this straight, Ms. Fluke, and I’m asking this with all due respect, I am – you want me to give you my hard earned money so you can have sex, is that what you’re asking for? Good grief . . . But let’s get back to Sandra, who clearly wants society to pay for her activities . . . You see, this is all a ruse, I don’t care what Sandra Fluke does, she’s an American . . . but I don’t want to pay for her recreation. This is madness. The progressive movement, totally ignoring reality, is defining this exclusively as a womens’ health issue. But there are health implications for everything we do, including eating a burger. It is Ms. Fluke herself who is responsible for what she does, not me and not you. This is all part of what the Obama Administration is trying to do: Regulate the freedom of Americans. The President even called Ms. Fluke before a t.v. appearance . . . What about the concerns of Americans in general, now forced to buy health insurance who don’t want to pay extra for Sandra Fluke’s social decision? Ms. Fluke is unconcerned (Fluke: “I think this is about womens’ health . . . .”). Now no matter what I say, Sandra Fluke and those who support her are not gonna listen. For them, sex is a potential health crisis so American taxpayers should now be responsible for what goes on in everybody’s bedroom . . . this is a freedom issue. My issue as an American is being encroached upon. The Obama Administration is trying to force me and you to pick up the tab for what people do in their private time . . . But back to our wallets in this country. Progressive politicians like Barbara Boxer are trying to make this a gender issue . . . there is no condom provision in Obamacare – at least, not yet . . . This Viagra argument is another canard. Nobody is saying that American women should be denied insurance coverage if something is physically wrong with them, and that’s what Viagra covers for men, so this is b.s. And by the way, nobody is denying women birth control either, it’s on sale everywhere . . . Men need to be physically in shape, so, why don’t we pick up gym memberships . . . America became the strongest country . . . on earth because of self-reliance . . . we used to be encouraged to work hard to achieve what we want . . . Now the progressive collosus is demanding payment for Sandra Fluke so that she can go through Georgetown law school with an active, healthy social life. Higher insurance premiums? Forget about it. Sandra and millions of other American women have many things they’d like to do on our tab.” (emphasis added)

Okay, let’s get this straight: Birth control in the form of oral contraceptives has nothing to do with a woman’s health (despite the fact that contraceptives are, in fact, also used for acne, to regulate debilitating menstrual periods, for hormone replacement, among other things), but Viagra should be automatically covered under health insurance because it’s about a physical disability (yes, a limp dick) and “that’s what Viagra covers for men?”

Sure, and men go to Hooters for the ribs and read Playboy for the culture. But underlying this propping up of a man’s limp member at the expense of a woman’s contraceptive health and freedom is a bizarre twist of logic: Men need Viagra because of an, shall we say, inability to perform adequately in sexual matters; when given Viagra, they are able to fully enjoy sexual activities – with women who are called derogatory names for that same sexual activity, and denied contraceptives in their health insurance plans to avoid pregnancy as a result of the Viagra-dosed male.

“This sense of entitlement I don’t understand because I wasn’t raised that way . . . okay, I have a social life, people, I have a social life, people, and I want you to pay for it. I went to college, I didn’t have any money, Sandra . . . somehow I got by, somehow I painted houses so I could buy what I had to buy, but not for Sandra – no, she wants it covered, by the government. And this is driving me crazy, Janine – how did that happen?”

Is it a “sense of entitlement” for health insurance plans to cover maternity? No? How about mammograms, STD testing, Pap smears? Entitlement? No? Then why is it an “entitlement” for women to be provided with contraceptives – contraceptives, incidentally, that practically everyone on the right, in their arguments against it, is claiming it’s an insignificant expense for women (but evidently too expensive for cash cow health insurance companies to cover) – when millions of women use oral contraceptives for medical purposes?

Most health insurance companies cover vasectomies, a contraceptive measure, to the tune of about $2,000. And, as pointed out by Krystal Ball on The Ed Show, the best way to prevent abortion, which Republicans reject as an option, and the more expensive pregnancies that result from unprotected sex, is for women to have access to contraceptives . . . through their health insurance, just like the boys and their vasectomies and their Viagra.

Karen Finney, MSNBC analyst, also noted on The Ed Show that the determined circling of the wagons around Rush by right-wingers is because, “When their power is challenged, they stick together . . . they’re trying to reduce Sandra and this story to, this is about sexual activity and sexual habits, which it’s not . . . And the larger message here is, the Republican Party is standing with the Vatican and protecting the institution . . . what we’re talking about is protecting the rights of the individual . . . the woman who would be affected by this . . . Just as we’re talking about Sandra as a person not as some kind of sex object . . . .”

Finney also reminded us of one salient fact: “More women than men vote and we will remember this, and Democrats will use this and remind American women who is on their side.” As a caveat to that, Republican women – with contraceptive needs themselves, and the uncomfortable feeling of watching a young woman, perhaps not unlike their own daughters, being flogged and villified by men for honesty and sincerity – also vote.

Republicans have tried to frame the contraceptive debate by tying it to religious freedom: Didn’t fly, we didn’t buy it. Plan B – link it to higher insurance premiums and “taxpayer dollars” being squandered: We didn’t buy that one, either (mainly because it’s patently untrue – contraceptives actually boost the economy and save taxpayers money). Finally, Republicans – in the form of Rush Limbaugh – were driven into honesty by frustration and fury, and have now framed the debate in terms of out of control female sexuality, which is what it’s always been about. From House Speaker John Boehner to the GOP presidential candidates to pundits like Bill O’Reilly and others, few on the Republican side have stepped up to harshly condemn Limbaugh’s comments.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed here are those of the individual contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the LA Progressive, its publisher, editor or any of its other contributors.

About Julie Driscoll

Julie is a 25-year veteran legal assistant in the Chicago legal community and, although always passionate about various causes, is a recent – within the past several years – entrant into the field of political activism. For a year and a half she was a writer for News Hounds, a website that is dedicated to critical analysis of Fox News (“We Watch Fox So You Don’t Have To”), is currently the Chicago Liberal Examiner for Examiner.com, is involved with the media side of the local MoveOn.org chapter, and runs multiple large political groups on Facebook. Although she began her activism through writing, she has more recently become a “boots on the ground” activist, having attended many protests on behalf of the unions in Madison, Wisconsin, Lansing, Michigan, and Chicago, as well as a rally in Benton Harbor, Michigan, advocating on behalf of the residents whose town has been taken over by the Emergency Financial Manager appointed by the Governor. Her causes are people-oriented . . . and her belief is that people need to be protected before dollars are counted. Her motto: Make sure people are safe, healthy, housed and fed – and screw the cost.

I hope you’ll remember ! this has been the elephant in the bed room for as long as I can remember and being nice and not mentioning the stone cold fact that the gop is full of limp dick jerkoffs isn’t working ~ they know this and have used it to partially destroy America .

Maybe rush should be thanked for finally going so far out of control that we couldn’t ignore it any longer . -Nate

Los Angeles

Cheryl Dorsey: Beck is leaving two years before completing his second term. I bet if you were to ask the parents of Ezell Ford—the unarmed 25-year-old black man killed by LAPD officers in 2014—they’d probably say that they wished Beck had left a lot sooner.